ARAW - Assume Right / Assume Wrong Search

Input: $ARGUMENTS

Core Principles

These govern everything. When procedure conflicts with principle, follow the principle.

1. Derivation, not enumeration. Let structure emerge from exploration. Follow surprising branches deeper. If you’re checking boxes instead of following curiosity, stop and explore.

2. No early termination. When depth is specified (8x, 16x), meet the depth floors. These are minimums, not targets to pad toward.

3. Both sides, equal rigor. AR and AW get the same depth of exploration. The goal is understanding, not confirmation. If you find yourself validating everything, you are confirming, not exploring.

4. AW must be genuinely adversarial. The biggest failure mode is soft AW — “well, with conditions it works.” That’s not AW, that’s AR wearing a hat. Real AW finds reasons the claim is WRONG, alternatives that are BETTER, and conditions where the claim FAILS. If your AW doesn’t make the claim uncomfortable, dig harder.

5. Depth means tree depth, not breadth. A session with 18 claims but 2-level trees has failed. Depth means following chains of implication 5-8 levels deep.

6. Every finding gets tracked. When you find an implication, a reason something is wrong, a foreclosure, or an alternative — number it. It goes in the registry. Nothing gets lost in prose.

7. Bedrock is not an opinion. Bedrock means ONE of:

   • BEDROCK-TEST: Empirically testable — you can run an experiment or check a fact
   • BEDROCK-LOGIC: Logically necessary — follows from definitions or mathematics
   • BEDROCK-OBSERVE: Directly observable — something you can directly see/measure
   • BEDROCK-TENSION: Contradicts another established claim in this analysis
   • “This seems right” or “probably true” is NOT bedrock. Keep recursing.

8. Rejection is a valid and expected outcome. If a session validates every candidate, something is wrong. Expect 20-40% of claims to be REJECTED or genuinely UNCERTAIN. If you’re not rejecting anything, you’re generating only safe candidates or testing them too softly.

9. Alternatives are DERIVED, not asserted. Don’t pull alternatives from thin air. If X is wrong because of Y, the alternative is whatever Y points to. If you can’t derive an alternative from the wrongness analysis, you don’t have one yet.

10. Three phases, strict separation. Phase 1 explores (no conclusions). Phase 2 compiles (no new findings). Phase 3 synthesizes (only from the registry). Never mix phases.

Quick Mode: ARAW-Lite

For low-stakes, reversible, time-sensitive decisions:

CLAIM: [Most important claim]
ASSUME RIGHT: What becomes possible? [2-3 sentences]
ASSUME WRONG: Best alternative? Risk? [2-3 sentences]
VERDICT: [PROCEED / RECONSIDER / NEED MORE INFO]
ACTION: [One specific next step]

Not saved. For quick decisions only.

Step 0: Meta-ARAW (Strategy Selection)

~50 lines max. Optional for 1-2x, required for 4x+.

1. Restate the question — ensure you understand the input
2. Check evaluability — is this a testable claim, or a decision/request that needs claim extraction?
3. Identify uncertainty type — epistemic (learn more), aleatoric (hedge), model (reframe)
4. Discover dimensions — quick universalization to find what to ARAW:
   • What states could this be in? (state space)
   • What is this an instance of? (category)
   • What parameters could vary? (variation)
   • Whose view is this? (perspective)
5. Check for pitfalls — fish in dreams (expecting specific answer), red herring (explanation matches what you’re explaining), smokescreen (confusion when approaching)

Claim Evaluability

ARAW operates on claims (true/false). If the input is a decision, request, or conclusion, extract the underlying claims first:

“I need to quit my job” -> Claims: a problem exists, the job causes it, quitting fixes it, alternatives don’t exist, what comes after is better. ARAW those.

Step 1: Identify and Unbundle Claims

Parse input into claims. For each:

• State precisely
• Note type: explicit / implicit / bundled / presupposed / meta
• Rate VOI: how much would knowing this change action?

Number every claim: C1, C2, C3…

[C1] [claim text] -- TYPE: explicit -- VOI: high
[C2] [claim text] -- TYPE: implicit -- VOI: medium
[C3] [claim text] -- TYPE: bundled -- VOI: high
[C4] [claim text] -- TYPE: presupposed -- VOI: low
[C5] [claim text] -- TYPE: meta -- VOI: medium

ARAW high-VOI claims first. They determine the most.

Unbundling

Single statements often contain multiple claims. “I need to quit my job” bundles at least 5. Find them all. Each gets its own C-number.

Blind Spot Check

After identifying claims: what would someone from a different perspective, domain, time horizon, or scale notice that you didn’t? Add those as additional C-numbered claims.

Phase 1: EXPLORATION (Step 2)

ARAW Each Claim

For each high-VOI claim, build a numbered tree. Every AR produces sub-claims that need AW. Every AW produces alternatives that need AR. Recurse.

Number every finding as you go: F1, F2, F3… (findings are distinct from claims — claims are what you’re testing, findings are what you discover).

[C1] "[claim text]"
  ASSUME RIGHT:
  [F1] If right: [implication] -- Necessary/Probable/Possible
    [F2] If F1 right: [deeper implication]
      [F3] If F2 right: [-> BEDROCK-TEST: specific test]
    [F4] If F1 right: [different implication]
      [F5] [-> BEDROCK-OBSERVE: observable fact]
  [F6] FORECLOSED if C1 right: [what becomes impossible]
    [F7] Consequence of F6: [what follows from that foreclosure]

  ASSUME WRONG:
  [F8] Wrong because: [reason] -- Fatal/Serious/Conditional
    [F9] If F8 holds: [deeper reason]
      [F10] [-> BEDROCK-TEST: specific test]
    [F11] Alternative derived from F8: [what F8 points toward]
      [F12] If F11 right: [implication of the alternative]
  [F13] Wrong because: [second independent reason] -- Fatal/Serious/Conditional
    ...
  [F14] Wrong because: [the uncomfortable reason] -- Fatal/Serious/Conditional
    ...

Classification Labels

AR implications:

• Necessary: MUST follow — no way around it
• Probable: Likely follows given reasonable assumptions
• Possible: Could follow under specific conditions (state them)
• Foreclosed: This option/belief is NO LONGER available if the claim is right

AW reasons:

• Fatal: This alone kills the claim
• Serious: Significantly undermines the claim
• Conditional: Kills the claim under specific conditions (state them)

Bedrock labels (the ONLY valid stopping points):

• BEDROCK-TEST: [specific experiment or measurement]
• BEDROCK-LOGIC: [logical/mathematical necessity]
• BEDROCK-OBSERVE: [directly observable fact]
• BEDROCK-TENSION: [contradicts established finding F-number]

Multi-Valued AW

“Wrong” has multiple values. Don’t just negate — expand the state space:

Binary AW (limited): "NOT X"
Multi-valued AW (complete):
[F15] Alternative Y -- derived from [F-number reason]
[F16] Alternative Z -- derived from [F-number reason]
[F17] Hybrid X+Y -- derived from [F-number reason]
[F18] Reframe: wrong question entirely -- derived from [F-number reason]
[F19] X but modified -- derived from [F-number reason]

Every alternative MUST cite which wrongness finding it derives from.

AW by Claim Type

Unconventional Alternative Requirement

For each major AW, include at least one genuinely unconventional alternative — not just the obvious opposite:

• What if the opposite of conventional wisdom is true?
• What would an outsider/novice suggest?
• What hasn’t been tried, and why not?
• What would be embarrassing to suggest but might actually work?

If every alternative feels safe and reasonable, you haven’t explored far enough.

Depth Floors

These are floors. Go deeper where insight is dense. Compress where it’s not.

Phase 2: FINDING REGISTRY (Step 3)

After ALL exploration is complete, compile EVERY finding into a categorized registry. Nothing from Phase 1 gets left out.

FINDING REGISTRY
================

CLAIMS TESTED:
[C1] [text] -- TYPE: explicit -- VOI: high
[C2] [text] -- TYPE: implicit -- VOI: medium
...

AR FINDINGS (Implications):
[F1] [text] -- STRENGTH: necessary -- PARENT: C1
[F2] [text] -- STRENGTH: probable -- PARENT: F1
...

AR FINDINGS (Foreclosures):
[F6] [text] -- PARENT: C1
[F7] [text] -- PARENT: F6
...

AW FINDINGS (Wrongness Reasons):
[F8] [text] -- SEVERITY: fatal -- PARENT: C1
[F13] [text] -- SEVERITY: serious -- PARENT: C1
...

AW FINDINGS (Derived Alternatives):
[F11] [text] -- DERIVED FROM: F8
[F15] [text] -- DERIVED FROM: F13
...

BEDROCK REACHED:
[F3] BEDROCK-TEST: [text]
[F5] BEDROCK-OBSERVE: [text]
[F10] BEDROCK-TEST: [text]
...

TENSIONS:
[F-number] contradicts [F-number]: [description]
...

CLAIM VERDICTS:
[C1] [VALIDATED / REJECTED / DAMAGED / CONDITIONAL / UNCERTAIN]
  -- AR evidence: [F-numbers]
  -- AW evidence: [F-numbers]
  -- Verdict derived from: [which evidence is stronger and why]
[C2] ...

CRUX POINTS:
[CRUX-1] [precise question] -- resolves: [F-numbers] -- test: [how]
[CRUX-2] [precise question] -- resolves: [F-numbers] -- test: [how]
...

TOTALS:
- Claims tested: [N]
- Total findings: [N]
- AR findings: [N] ([N] necessary, [N] probable, [N] possible)
- AW findings: [N] ([N] fatal, [N] serious, [N] conditional)
- Foreclosures: [N]
- Derived alternatives: [N]
- Bedrock reached: [N]
- Tensions: [N]
- Verdicts: [N] validated, [N] rejected, [N] damaged, [N] conditional, [N] uncertain
- CRUX points: [N]

Verdict values (derived from the tree, not asserted):

• VALIDATED: AR evidence reaches bedrock, AW reasons don’t reach fatal bedrock
• REJECTED: AW fatal reason reaches bedrock
• DAMAGED: Serious AW reasons found but none individually fatal at bedrock
• CONDITIONAL: Wrong under specific stated conditions, right under others
• UNCERTAIN: Neither side reached bedrock — needs more investigation

Rules for the registry:

• Every C-numbered claim from Step 1 appears here. No exceptions.
• Every F-numbered finding from Phase 1 appears here. No exceptions.
• Verdicts must be DERIVED from the tree, not asserted. Point to the specific findings.
• If a verdict is unclear, mark UNCERTAIN, not VALIDATED.

Phase 3: SYNTHESIS (Step 4)

Derived entirely from the registry. No new findings introduced here.

ORIGINAL INPUT: [restated]

OVERALL PATTERN: [expansive / constraining / contradictory / convergent / mixed]

WHAT THE ANALYSIS ACTUALLY FOUND:
[Numbered list of every substantive finding, referencing F-numbers and C-numbers]
1. [finding, from C1: F1->F3]
2. [finding, from C1: F8->F10]
3. [finding, from C2: F20->F25]
...

KEY TENSIONS:
[Any F-numbers that contradict each other. If none found, say so.]
1. [F-number] vs [F-number]: [what this tension means]
2. ...

WEAKEST LINKS:
[Which findings in the chains are Possible/Conditional rather than Necessary/Fatal?
 These are where analysis might break. Reference F-numbers.]

ALTERNATIVES DERIVED FROM ANALYSIS:
[Only alternatives that emerged from wrongness reasons. Each cites F-numbers.
 If no alternatives emerged, say "None derived -- further exploration needed."]
1. [alternative] -- derived from [F-numbers]
2. ...

TESTABLE PREDICTIONS:
- [prediction derived from specific F-numbers]
- [prediction derived from specific F-numbers]

DO_FIRST ACTIONS:
1. [action] -- WHO: [Claude/user] -- resolves: [CRUX-number or F-numbers]
2. [action] -- WHO: [Claude/user] -- resolves: [CRUX-number or F-numbers]
...

UNRESOLVED:
- [claims that stayed UNCERTAIN -- what would resolve them]
- [findings that stayed Possible -- what would confirm or deny them]

Anti-Failure Checks

When ARAW Fails

If producing same findings repeatedly -> check for fish in dreams (expecting a specific answer) If explanations don’t fit -> check for red herring If confusion when approaching -> check for smokescreen

Try: go deeper, reframe the question, or use /space_discovery to find what space you’re missing.

Saving Output

Output is NOT auto-saved. If the user wants to save, they invoke /savefile after the session.

Pre-Completion Check

• All claims numbered (C1, C2, …) with types and VOI
• All findings numbered (F1, F2, …) with classification
• Depth floors met (claims, findings, tree levels, CRUX)
• AR and AW explored with equal rigor
• Every branch reaches bedrock (BEDROCK-TEST/LOGIC/OBSERVE/TENSION — not opinion)
• ALL claims from Step 1 appear in registry (none dropped)
• ALL findings from Phase 1 appear in registry (none dropped)
• Verdicts derived from tree, not asserted
• Synthesis introduces NO new findings — only references C-numbers and F-numbers
• Alternatives derived from analysis, not asserted from thin air (each cites F-numbers)
• At least one uncomfortable finding
• Foreclosures and costs explicitly identified (not just positives)
• Weakest links identified with F-numbers
• Testable predictions reference specific F-numbers
• Validation bias check: If >80% of claims VALIDATED, go back and test harder. At least 20% should be REJECTED or genuinely UNCERTAIN.
• Unconventional check: At least 1 AW branch explored a genuinely unconventional alternative
• Cheerleading check: If every AR finding is positive, you missed the costs. Go back.
• Softness check: If >50% of AW claims SURVIVED, either the claim is robust or you were too soft